it is important for First Central to prevent the union from gaining a toehold at the bank. They have a responsibility to the shareholders for continued growth and to the customers to keep the cost of services low. Allowing the union in would be a bad idea. A company free of unions provides the greatest social benefit. In the next thirty days the bank should seriously address the concerns of all employees. Without promising anything that might be construed as an unfair labor practice the bank should give a heartfelt effort to convince the people that wages and benefits will improve in the future with or without the union. It must convey that the interests of the workers are serious concerns for management. Following the Utilitarianism theory again, the bank would be well advised to avoid any negative publicity. Negative publicity hurts, and could erode the trust that exists in the community for First Central or make it harder for the bank to do business deals with partners. There could be a concern that First Central management could get so distracted by the campaign that they might make poor business decisions. This could raise questions as to the financial integrity and soundness of the bank. First Union could avoid a costly and divisive election simply by recognizing the union. In the long run, this would have the greatest utilitarian effect. The short term cost for the bank and the shareholders would have long term benefits. A quick recognition of the union by the bank would send a message to the employees that First Central was interested in more than just the bottom line. They would have a sense of fair treatment to them by the bank. This would translate into more productive employees which would result in even greater profits for the bank and shareholders and security for the employees.One of the first things that hit me in reading this case was First Central’s lack of understanding for the concerns of the employees. In fac...
